On Monday morning, delegates convened for
an in-session SBSTA workshop on mitigation. In the afternoon, SBSTA
reconvened to take up agenda items on the scientific, technical and
socioeconomic aspects of both adaptation and mitigation. In the evening,
SBI met to discuss adoption of its agenda. In addition, contact groups
and informal meetings were held throughout the day. SBI contact groups
met to discuss the internal review of the Secretariat’s activities, the
programme budget for 2006-2007, arrangements for intergovernmental
meetings, non-Annex I communications, and LDCs. SBSTA contact groups and
informal meetings were held on various issues, including methodologies
for adjustments for LULUCF, registry systems under the Kyoto Protocol,
adaptation, research needs relating to the Convention, emissions from
aviation and maritime transport, and a work programme on adaptation.

Richard Bradley, International Energy
Agency, noted that stabilizing emissions while addressing electricity
deprivation will require a change in capital structures and the
deployment of all available energy technologies. He highlighted
“greening investment” and cooperative R&D agreements.

Christian Azar, Chalmers University,
highlighted the importance of efficiency standards, particularly when
energy prices are low. He noted that a 1936 car had a fuel efficiency of
six liters/100km, which is comparable to today’s performance, and
underscored underinvestment in public energy R&D and the need for public
investment in market deployment.

Priyantha Wijayatunga, Public Utilities
Commission, Sri Lanka, elaborated on mitigation technology barriers in
developing countries. He questioned whether developing countries should
use technologies that are not deployed in developed countries, such as
the Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle, and questioned the adequacy
of the CDM as a financing mechanism.

Mitsutsune Yamaguchi, Teikyo University,
reported on efficiency gains in Japan’s iron and steel sector, adding
that if this sector in China and Russia achieved the same energy
intensity, total global emissions would fall one percent. He supported
diffusion of Coke Dry Quenching (CDQ) technology.

Luís Cifuentes, Catholic University of
Chile, presented on the US EPA’s Integrated Environment Strategies (IES)
Programme, which aims to identify integrated strategies and measures
that address greenhouse gas abatement and local air pollution. He noted
mostly positive correlations between greenhouse gas and local air
pollutant reductions, and said health benefits of abatement usually
outweigh the costs.

David Montgomery, Charles River
Associates, focused on the spillover effects of mitigation measures in
Annex B countries. Montgomery explained that patterns of spillover are
determined by which fuels and sectors the policies target. SAUDI ARABIA
said energy taxation should be restructured to reflect carbon content.

Steve Thorne, SouthSouthNorth
Project, presented on lessons learned from mitigation projects in South
Africa, noting a “race to the bottom” when it comes to the sustainable
development requirement of CDM projects. He warned that unless
sustainable development is accorded a value, it will remain an
incidental benefit.

ADAPTATION:
On Monday afternoon, SBSTA reconvened to address its agenda item on the
scientific, technical and socioeconomic aspects of adaptation, and Chair
Abdulla presented his summary of the workshop. The EU stressed SBSTA’s
role in synthesizing and disseminating existing information, and
identified adaptation as complementary to mitigation.

The G-77/CHINA called for a more
action-oriented objective, and for taking a portfolio of approaches
instead of a purely sectoral approach. He said the need to expedite
measures should not be restricted by calls for further assessments. The
US highlighted the need to focus on priority sectors and to link
measures to long-term planning.

Tuvalu, for AOSIS, called for a special
track for SIDS to address urgent needs, and said the programme should
not include matters relating to mitigation. SWITZERLAND stressed SBSTA’s
role in identifying available methodologies. JAPAN noted that a thematic
approach would be preferable to a time-consuming sectoral approach.
Sudan, on behalf of the AFRICA GROUP, cautioned that a sectoral approach
may marginalize local knowledge and called for a thematic and
livelihoods approach. Marjorie Pyoos (South Africa) and James Shevlin
(Australia) will convene consultations.

MITIGATION:
Delegates took up scientific, technical and socioeconomic aspects of
mitigation. Kok Seng Yap and Toshiyuki Sakamoto reported on the workshop
held that morning. Many delegates highlighted the CDM, energy
efficiency, barriers to technology transfer and deployment, and
renewable energy sources.

JAPAN proposed benchmarking efficiency
levels on a sectoral basis and institutional reform of the CDM. NORWAY
stressed challenges in the transport sector and, with the EU,
highlighted the co-benefits of mitigation measures. The EU said it would
support elaborating a multi-year work programme. CANADA referenced
carbon capture and storage and the upcoming IPCC report on this matter.
The US highlighted capacity building and cooperation between governments
and the private sector. KENYA said renewable energy technology should be
manufactured locally. AUSTRALIA noted initiatives supporting
international cooperation, including the Carbon Sequestration Leadership
Forum and Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership (REEEP).
Informal consultations to develop SBSTA draft conclusions will begin
Tuesday at 3:00 pm.

SBI

ORGANIZATIONAL MATTERS:
Following further debate on Saudi Arabia’s proposal to add agenda items
on implementation of UNFCCC Article 4.8 and 4.9 (FCCC/SBI/2005/1/Add.2),
Chair Becker proposed that those items and a G-77/China proposed item on
capacity building be included under Other Matters. Following informal
consultations, delegates accepted the Chair’s proposal and adopted the
agenda (FCCC/SBI/2005/1 and Add.1).

OTHER MATTERS:
Following a statement by Tanzania, for the G-77/CHINA, referencing
decisions 2/CP.7 and 2/CP.10 on capacity building, the Chair noted the
importance of commitments to review the capacity building framework and
receive a report from GEF at the next session. He will draft SBI draft
conclusions.

REVIEW OF THE SECRETARIATï¿½S ACTIVITIES:
The contact group on the internal review of Secretariat activities
reconvened on Monday morning. On the draft COP conclusions, Chair
Dovland added a paragraph inviting the Secretariat to keep Parties
informed about its follow up to the review. The EU, supported by the US,
amended a paragraph on work with other international organizations,
specifying that cooperation and communication should be focused and add
value. JAPAN and SWITZERLAND added that efforts should be conducted
within available resources. On documentation, the EU introduced text on
the advantage of Parties exercising discipline when asking the
Secretariat to prepare papers. The contact group has scheduled a final
meeting for Tuesday afternoon at 4:30 pm.

PROGRAMME BUDGET FOR THE BIENNIUM 2006-2007:
Delegates discussed new draft proposals from the Chair and the
Secretariatï¿½s proposed budget. Nigeria, for the G-77/CHINA, noted that
the frequency of expert group meetings supported by core funding must be
consistent with COP decision 4/CP.7. The EU, CANADA, SOUTH AFRICA and
others, opposed by the RUSSIAN FEDERATION, supported the proposed
budget, given increased requirements due to the Kyoto Protocolï¿½s entry
into force. The US stressed its concerns over the division of Kyoto
Protocol and Convention expenses, rather than the size of the budget.
The Chair will consult informally and present revised proposals at the
groupï¿½s final meeting on Tuesday.

LEAST DEVELOPED COUNTRIES:
Delegates considered draft SBI conclusions and a draft COP 11 decision
on LDCs. Co-Chair Moita asked that parties consider these texts as a
compromise way forward. Many parties, including the EU, NORWAY, CANADA,
JAPAN and Bangladesh, on behalf of the LDC GROUP, said they saw many
positive aspects in the proposed texts. Several said they could still
not agree to the text without revisions. At the request of the
Co-Chairs, parties agreed to consult informally. The contact group will
reconvene Tuesday.

REGISTRY SYSTEMS UNDER THE KYOTO PROTOCOL:
Murray Ward (New Zealand) chaired informal consultations on Monday, with
delegates considering short draft conclusions. Discussions focused on
the process and the timing of the indicative schedule for developing the
international transaction log (ITL). A longer revised draft text was
circulated on Monday evening.

RESEARCH NEEDS RELATING TO THE CONVENTION:
Consultations resumed on Monday, with delegates working on draft
conclusions. Steady progress was reported, with text added on technology
transfer. Informal consultations will continue on Tuesday.

ARRANGEMENTS FOR INTERGOVERNMENTAL MEETINGS:
This contact group reconvened on Monday afternoon. Saudi Arabia, for the
G-77/CHINA, added a request that the host country facilitate the
issuance of visas for COP 11 and the COP/MOP 1. He proposed deleting a
request that the COP 10 Bureau, with the Secretariat and COP 11
President-designate, further consider the details and format of
high-level segments; and proposed the addition of an invitation to the
Parties to enhance contributions to allow effective participation.
NORWAY and the EU opposed the deletion. The G-77/CHINA queried a budget
allocation of US$140,000 (FCCC/SBI/2005/Add.2) for pre-COP high-level
intergovernmental consultations. The Secretariat explained that this was
a possible requirement from the supplementary fund. On draft proposals
for the high-level segments, the US supported including a panel or
roundtable. Parties will consult informally and the contact group will
reconvene Tuesday afternoon.

NON-ANNEX I
COMMUNICATIONS:
Co-Chairs Sok Appadu and Turesson facilitated informal consultations on
timing of submissions of second and, where appropriate, third national
communications. Intervals of four or five years are under consideration.
Parties have been considering proposals from the G-77/China, and will
reconvene at 11:00 am Tuesday morning.

ADAPTATION:
Co-Chair Shevlin proposed initiating an exchange of views based on the
SBSTA Chairï¿½s summary of the workshop. On objectives of the work
programme, the G-77/CHINA, with AOSIS, called for action-oriented,
short- and long-term measures, and a focus on the most vulnerable. The
EU, US, and NEW ZEALAND favored improved understanding and cooperation.
On the structure of the work programme, the EU, US, and CANADA proposed
taking a sectoral approach, while the G-77/CHINA, AOSIS, RUSSIAN
FEDERATION, AFRICA GROUP and JAPAN preferred a broader approach,
including a livelihoods approach. Regarding modalities, the G-77/CHINA
and AOSIS called for a working group to advance work and ensure
follow-up. Discussions will continue in the contact group on Tuesday
afternoon.

ADJUSTMENTS FOR LULUCF: During an
evening meeting of the contact group,
Co-Chair Paciornik presented revised draft text. Delegates agreed to
request submissions on criteria for failure to submit information, and
concluded their work late Monday with agreement on all outstanding
issues.

A number of participants at SB 22 have
commented on an apparent shift in Chinaï¿½s engagement in the climate
change process. While some observers believe the Group of 77 is
occupying familiar ground, they argue that Chinaï¿½s role has increased in
line with its emerging status as a major economic powerï¿½and that its
positions on some issues may be shifting, too. Some see the
environmental fallout from Chinaï¿½s rapid industrialization as a key
driver of that countryï¿½s approach. The view is that China anticipates
trouble ahead and has decided to help shape the architecture of the
climate regime so as to minimize shocks further down the road. According
to some experts, another driver could be Chinaï¿½s engagement with the WTO
regime. Observers have also noted closer collaboration between China and
Japan, as the two countries eye-up opportunities for drawing down
mutually beneficial environmental and economic rewards from the climate
regime.

This issue of
the Earth Negotiations
Bulletin ï¿½ <enb@iisd.org>
is written and edited by
Alexis Conrad, Peter Doran,
Ph.D., Marï¿½a Gutiï¿½rrez,
Miquel Muï¿½oz, and Chris
Spence. The Digital Editor
is David Fernau. The Editor
is
Lisa Schipper, Ph.D., <lisa@iisd.org>
and the Director of IISD
Reporting Services is
Langston James ï¿½Kimoï¿½ Goree
VI <kimo@iisd.org>.
The Sustaining Donors of the
Bulletin are the
Government of the United
States of America (through
the Department of State
Bureau of Oceans and
International Environmental
and Scientific Affairs), the
Government of Canada
(through CIDA), the Swiss
Agency for Environment,
Forests and Landscape (SAEFL),
the United Kingdom (through
the Department for
International Development -
DFID), the Danish Ministry
of Foreign Affairs, the
Government of Germany
(through the German Federal
Ministry of Environment -
BMU, and the German Federal
Ministry of Development
Cooperation - BMZ), the
Netherlands Ministry of
Foreign Affairs, the
European Commission (DG-ENV),
and the Italian Ministry of
Environment. General Support
for the Bulletin
during 2005 is provided by
the United Nations
Environment Programme (UNEP),
the Government of Australia,
the Austrian Federal
Ministry of Agriculture,
Forestry, Environment and
Water Management, the
Ministry of Sustainable
Development and the Ministry
of Foreign Affairs of
Sweden, the Ministry of
Environment and the Ministry
of Foreign Affairs of
Norway, the Ministry of
Environment and the Ministry
of Foreign Affairs of
Finland, SWAN International,
the Japanese Ministry of
Environment (through the
Institute for Global
Environmental Strategies - IGES) and the Japanese
Ministry of Economy, Trade
and Industry (through the
Global Industrial and Social
Progress Research Institute
- GISPRI). Funding for
translation of the Earth
Negotiations Bulletin
into French has been
provided by the
International Organization
of the Francophonie (IOF)
and the French Ministry of
Foreign Affairs. Funding for
the translation of the
Earth Negotiations Bulletin
into Spanish has been
provided by the Ministry of
Environment of Spain. The
opinions expressed in the
Earth Negotiations Bulletin
are those of the authors
and do not necessarily
reflect the views of IISD or
other donors. Excerpts from
the Earth Negotiations
Bulletin may be used in
non-commercial publications
with appropriate academic
citation. For information on
the Bulletin,
including requests to
provide reporting services,
contact the Director of IISD
Reporting Services at <kimo@iisd.org>,
+1-646-536-7556 or 212 East
47th St. #21F, New York, NY
10017, USA. The ENB Team at
SB 22 can be contacted by
e-mail at <chris@iisd.org>.